Regulating Informality in Public Space: Public Opinion and Street Vending in Latin America

This project explores two interrelated questions. Under which conditions do voters support policies regarding informal work? To what extent do media framings influence voters electoral support and support for eviction of informal workers? We address these questions using an original vignette experiment embedded in a survey of 2,200 individuals. Participants are randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (1) a null information condition, (2) a neutral information condition, (3) a pro-enforcement frame, (4) a pro-vendor frame, and (5) double-framing condition. The pro-enforcement frame portrays street vending as an illegal activity that generates negative externalities (e.g. obstructing public space, undermining formal businesses, and harming urban order and investment). The pro-vendor treatment emphasizes vendors’ socioeconomic vulnerability, labor rights, and the cultural value of informal vending, framing informality as a legitimate economic activity rather than willful non-compliance. Following the experimental treatment, we asked participants for electoral support and policy preferences. We hypothesize that negative frames emphasizing that street vending creates visual disorder, evades taxes, and contributes to insecurity reduce support for informal workers’ rights to operate in public spaces, while increasing support for eviction policies and electoral support for mayors. By contrast, frames emphasizing the vulnerability of informal workers significantly reduce support for urban crackdown policies.